{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Paper5PHL211 - simply fine tuning and rationalizations...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Molly Shifrin PHL 211 February 16, 2010 Paper #5 It seems to me that the argument that Paley presents is the stronger of the two. The second argument, or culmination of the newest DA’s, as Davis calls them, seems only to suggest the existence of something with minute power. These arguments are backed up by numbers that might as well be random, and Davis himself presents the criticism that life could exist under many different conditions. Also if these conditions that we live in are so close to not existing at all, why do we still exist? It doesn’t seem to me to be very persuasive that just because gases moved at such a rate during the Big Bang as to create the galaxy, means they were meant to go that fast. Paley’s argument suggests a common-day example that is easily relatable and carries over to a theory of a creator very easily. His argument actually answers the question of ‘why can we stumble upon something and know that it was created?’ The arguments that Davis presents are
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: simply fine tuning and rationalizations, while Paley’s argument is an answer. It relieves almost all doubt. It makes sense! When walking along a path, if one sees a watch, one can wonder at where it came from and come somewhere near the truth. But we don’t need to know the exact origin of the watch, who made it, or how it works, to understand that it came from some one . This argument is similar to other arguments in that the universe’s (watch’s) existence necessitates its creation and a creator. This is an overall stronger argument than the arguments that Davis presents. It is persuasive because it eliminates doubt. Davis’ arguments (and criticisms) are weaker because they present more doubts. The fact that his argument argues for intelligent design by such a small margin, it brings more doubt than agreement. What was to keep those molecules from getting just one degree hotter and not having a universe today? Sounds a little precarious to me....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}